<mjcar@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:f405d0f8-f78c-4ccd-91e5-0abc2bc7bb79@e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com. ..

<snip>

Sitat:

NB "Ceciliam filiam Beatricis, filie mee" literally means "Cecily the
daughter of Beatrice, my daughter" - this could be read in two
different ways:

(a) Cecily is the daughter of Beatrice, who is Nicholas Poyntz's
daughter
(b) Cecily (the daughter of Beatrice), Nicholas Poyntz's daughter.

Reading (a) seems more likely to me.

One of the benefits of Latin is that ambiguities like the above in English
occur far more rarely. Editors occasionally have nightmares about the
placement of a comma, or sometimes don't when they should, but more often
the relationships are straightforward.

I'm not sure if you are construing (b) in some way other than that Cecily is
the daughter of Nicholas and Beatrice. However, in this instance only (a)
can be understood from the Latin, since "Ceciliam" and "filiam" are
accusative, while "Beatricis" and "filie mee" are genitive. Since "Ceciliam"
does not agree with "filie" and "Beatricis" does, the meaning can only be
"Cecily, the daughter of my daughter Beatrice".

Douglas Richardson is behaving FAR better today than he did several years
ago.

Any unbiased observer should see that.

Today, Douglas has two fine genealogical books to his credit, has made
some money and is moving forward in style as a Good Father and a Good
Genealogist.

But it was Richardson's activities in preparation of the second of these
books that prompted your "carefully considered" opinion in 2004, remember?
The "sly, manipulative charlatan" was trying to get other people to do his
work for him, and telling fibs in the process.

We can all observe that you invariably squirm away from the specific,
straightforward defense of Richardson now on any new failures or deceptions
alleged by the "herd" of his critics.

Why, "in good faith", is that?

No-one else suggests there is any change in Richardson of late, but if he is
indeed such a reformed character due to your expert ministrations - and what
better examplar of civilised and scholarly behaviour could be imagined in a
pink fit? - then surely he should be happy to acknowledge this improvement
himself.

Douglas Richardson is behaving FAR better today than he did several years
ago.

Any unbiased observer should see that.

Today, Douglas has two fine genealogical books to his credit, has made some
money and is moving forward in style as a Good Father and a Good
Genealogist.

I helped in Douglas's Reformation -- in fact I was a primary catalyst and
impetus -- by bringing him to task.

Any unbiased observer who has been here for that entire time, 12 years or
so, should see that.

And I am such an unbiased observer, who was here then -- and who is here
now.

Today, it is Stewart, taf and Van de Pas who are badly misbehaving -- in
major part because they are ENVIOUS and COVETOUS of Douglas's Genealogical
Successes and the material benefits it has brought him.

NB "Ceciliam filiam Beatricis, filie mee" literally means "Cecily the
daughter of Beatrice, my daughter" - this could be read in two
different ways:

(a) Cecily is the daughter of Beatrice, who is Nicholas Poyntz's
daughter
(b) Cecily (the daughter of Beatrice), Nicholas Poyntz's daughter.

Reading (a) seems more likely to me.

One of the benefits of Latin is that ambiguities like the above in English
occur far more rarely. Editors occasionally have nightmares about the
placement of a comma, or sometimes don't when they should, but more often
the relationships are straightforward.

I'm not sure if you are construing (b) in some way other than that Cecily is
the daughter of Nicholas and Beatrice. However, in this instance only (a)
can be understood from the Latin, since "Ceciliam" and "filiam" are
accusative, while "Beatricis" and "filie mee" are genitive. Since "Ceciliam"
does not agree with "filie" and "Beatricis" does, the meaning can only be
"Cecily, the daughter of my daughter Beatrice".

Douglas Richardson is behaving FAR better today than he did several years
ago.

Any unbiased observer should see that.

Today, Douglas has two fine genealogical books to his credit, has made
some
money and is moving forward in style as a Good Father and a Good
Genealogist.

I helped in Douglas's Reformation -- in fact I was a primary catalyst and
impetus -- by bringing him to task.

Any unbiased observer who has been here for that entire time, 12 years or
so, should see that.

And I am such an unbiased observer, who was here then -- and who is here
now.

Today, it is Stewart, taf and Van de Pas who are badly misbehaving -- in
major part because they are ENVIOUS and COVETOUS of Douglas's Genealogical
Successes and the material benefits it has brought him.

Mark My Words...

DSH

Thanks - for once - for posting this again, it was just as funny the second
time round.

It must be going down a treat for your erstwhile buddy in Salt Lake City,
seeing what new humiliations he can expect from your desperate & worthless
friendship....

So now you admit that you have not actually read it yet - how, pray, did
you note anything in it independently? And if you are relying only on the
footnote in Zimmerman's edition of Ebendorfer, why did you misrepresent
what this said?

Do you even know the scope of Decker-Hauff's article? For instance,
whether this gives sources for informaiton, and/or discussion of dubious
points?

When you finally succeed in obtaining a copy, and if you manage to read
this for yourself instead of trying to cadge hints from me, you will note
that Decker-Hauff actually "assigns" four (count them, 4 not 3) children
to Frederick II by Isabel of England, and that he contradicts your
conclusion about the birthdate of Margaret.

I just refreshed my memory of this - Decker-Hauff also contradicts
Richardson's pet theory that Constance (whom he persists in calling Anna
through her entire life) rather than Margaret was the daughter betrothed to
Hermann of Thuringia.

No doubt we will be treated to a comprehensive retraction once Richardson
has actually read the article that he imagined would support his position.

Has anyone seen this interesting website reporting the story of the
birth and early death of Jordan? The astrologers had predicted that
Isabella's first-born would be a boy:

Douglas Richardson is behaving FAR better today than he did several years
ago.

Any unbiased observer should see that.

Today, Douglas has two fine genealogical books to his credit, has made some
money and is moving forward in style as a Good Father and a Good
Genealogist.

I helped in Douglas's Reformation -- in fact I was a primary catalyst and
impetus -- by bringing him to task.

Boast all you like, you self-centered hypocrite, but please tell us
precisely how you brought him to task.

Did you do so without violating the "Rules Of Enlightened & Courteous
Free Speech" about which you now suddenly seem to care so much?

How impressed do you think was Douglas by the courtesy of the
following jibe from you?

"Anger, Envy and a Twisted Character ---- amalgamated with an
apparently quite limited intelligence and a paucity of True
Genealogical Talent can do strange things to a man ---- as we are
seeing ---- very nasty things."

Sitat:

Any unbiased observer who has been here for that entire time, 12 years or
so, should see that.

And I am such an unbiased observer, who was here then -- and who is here
now.

The thought of a narcissist like you, with pathological delusions of
his own importance, being an "unbiased observer" is rather amusing.
Far from improving Douglas Richardson's behavior, you seem to have
taught him all the trolling skills of which you display such a mastery
-- having concentrated on that ignoble art to the total exclusion of
all other social and intellectual skills.

On Feb 14, 1:33 am, mj...@btinternet.com wrote:
Hm, you are disappointingly dull.
Do you know any other songs?

yeah, buster, we Americans know some other songs,
for scholarship, for you, from a great American writer, you figure
who,
how about our national Free Speech Anthem, something you silly Brits
cannot comprehend with your curtseying and bowing and scraping for
royalty

Left a good job in the city,
Workin' for The Man ev'ry night and day,
And I never lost one minute of sleepin',
Worryin' 'bout the way things might have been.

No-one else suggests there is any change in Richardson of late, but if he is
indeed such a reformed character due to your expert ministrations - and what
better examplar of civilised and scholarly behaviour could be imagined in a
pink fit? - then surely he should be happy to acknowledge this improvement
himself.

Peter, peter, peter, this is the most nonsense you have written to
date and
reflects on your consistency, idiocy, and lack of understanding about
the world
would you judge harshly William I the Conqueror for his conquering?
and Robert the Bruce for his brutality?
do you lack the considerable brainpower to doubt the existence of the
books
produced and used wisely by this list created by none other than
Douglas?
what is your jealousy, where stems its incessant fount, except you
waste
your time creating post after post after post about your inability to
think and
yes, to do wisely, stop the attacks, go out and go back to sleep,
Mister Rip van Winkie

It must be going down a treat for your erstwhile buddy in Salt Lake City,
seeing what new humiliations he can expect from your desperate & worthless
friendship....

Speaking which, we note your desperate & worthless friendship with
Pope Leo
the resource write of no consequence among gen-medieval members who do
not cite, use or consider valuable any resource which contains such
bias and
errors as he has created and refuses to change, alter, update and make
sensible

On Feb 14, 7:01 am, Leticia Cluff <leticia.cl...@nospam.gmail.com> wrote:
The thought of a narcissist like you, with pathological delusions of
his own importance, being an "unbiased observer" is rather amusing.
Far from improving Douglas Richardson's behavior, you seem to have
taught him all the trolling skills of which you display such a mastery
-- having concentrated on that ignoble art to the total exclusion of
all other social and intellectual skills.

Tish

mirror, mirror, on the wall, who is the phoniest of them all?
and Tish bashes the mirror with taffy duck's probiscus,
growing longer by the decade

On Feb 14, 4:24 am, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote:
Today, it is Stewart, taf and Van de Pas who are badly misbehaving -- in
major part because they are ENVIOUS of Douglas's Genealogical Successes.

Hear, hear, hear, no truer words were spoken since <G> proclaimed
Adam, man
and Eve, his rib-anointed dish in the garden to trouble the lad with
the apple of his eye

It must be going down a treat for your erstwhile buddy in Salt Lake City,
seeing what new humiliations he can expect from your desperate & worthless
friendship....

Speaking which, we note your desperate & worthless friendship with
Pope Leo
the resource write of no consequence among gen-medieval members who do
not cite, use or consider valuable any resource which contains such
bias and
errors as he has created and refuses to change, alter, update and make
sensible

So, let's get this right. Are you saying the only resource worth taking
notice of, is Douglas Richardson?

On Feb 14, 11:58 pm, "letiTiAfl...@gmail.com" <letiTiAfl...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Feb 14, 4:24 am, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote:
Today, it is Stewart, taf and Van de Pas who are badly misbehaving -- in
major part because they are ENVIOUS of Douglas's Genealogical Successes.

Hear, hear, hear, no truer words were spoken since <G> proclaimed
Adam, man
and Eve, his rib-anointed dish in the garden to trouble the lad with
the apple of his eye

Aren't you tired of embarrassing yourself yet, Bill?

It's bad enough that Bill is embarrassing himself, but why did he
choose to embarrass me in the process?

I don't think I ever replied to him or said anything negative about
him when he was posting under his own name.

On Feb 14, 7:01 am, Leticia Cluff <leticia.cl...@nospam.gmail.com> wrote:
The thought of a narcissist like you, with pathological delusions of
his own importance, being an "unbiased observer" is rather amusing.
Far from improving Douglas Richardson's behavior, you seem to have
taught him all the trolling skills of which you display such a mastery
-- having concentrated on that ignoble art to the total exclusion of
all other social and intellectual skills.

Tish

mirror, mirror, on the wall, who is the phoniest of them all?
and Tish bashes the mirror with taffy duck's probiscus,
growing longer by the decade

What kind of flowery protuberance do you think a probiscus is?
A nose-mallow?

I presume you mean proboscis, which you evidently can neither spell
nor pronounce.

Douglas Richardson is behaving FAR better today than he did several years
ago.

<snip>

Sitat:

How impressed do you think was Douglas by the courtesy of the
following jibe from you?

"Anger, Envy and a Twisted Character ---- amalgamated with an
apparently quite limited intelligence and a paucity of True
Genealogical Talent can do strange things to a man ---- as we are
seeing ---- very nasty things."

Thanks Tish, the post from Hines containing this comment deserves to be read
and remembered in full -

It's bad enough that Bill is embarrassing himself, but why did he
choose to embarrass me in the process?

I don't think I ever replied to him or said anything negative about
him when he was posting under his own name.

I hope people can tell the difference between Bill's Fluff and me.

Tish

The cognescenti know ;)

Your 'crime', Tish, was to criticise the 'Lion of SGM' - Bill's idol.
Despite what Hines may project, sometimes there's honour amongst
trolls. Douglas must be very proud to have such well-respected
supporters.

To all who read this present letter, Nicholas Poinz [brings] greetings.

Know that I, Nicholas Poinz, pledge to my lord, H. the illustrious king of
England, on behalf of Hugh, my son, that the said Hugh will faithfully serve
the same my lord the King, from Monday following the first Sunday of Lent in
the first year of his reign, and henceforth, and never withdraw his
fidelity. And if perchance it should happen that he withdraw his fidelity,
or become unfaithful in his service, I concede that all my lands be
forfeited to my lord the King.

Furthermore, I, Nicholas Poinz, offer freely to my lord the King, Cecily,
daughter of my daughter Beatrice, as a hostage and a pledge of this faithful
service. Hugh Poinz, W. de Lacy, J. of Monmouth, H. of Mortimer, W. of
Clifford, and R. of Clifford constitute the principal guarantors of this
pledge.

In New york there was a posh party, only the richest of the rich were there.
All dressed in their finest of finery. But then a Texan arrived, wearing
cowboy boots and a gallon hat.

The hostess was aghast, and confronted him. You can't come here dressed like
this!!!

The Texan: Yes I can!!

The hostess: Where did you get it that this is acceptable in a society like
this?

The Texan : I got it from the highest authority in etiquette.

The Hostess ; Really? Tell me more.

See below

The Texan : I was in England and was invited to a reception in Buckingham
Palace, and the Queen came to me and said, you may be able to arrive dressed
like this in New York, but you can't do it here !!!

-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject
and the body of the message
Interesting... of course President Bush probably wears only his best
dress Justins ( top of the line cowboy boots) with his tuxedo whenever out in
society rather than his work boots. I think if He takes his stetson along,
that is left in the cloak room.
Sincerely,

In New york there was a posh party, only the richest of the rich were
there.
All dressed in their finest of finery. But then a Texan arrived, wearing
cowboy boots and a gallon hat.

The hostess was aghast, and confronted him. You can't come here dressed
like
this!!!

The Texan: Yes I can!!

The hostess: Where did you get it that this is acceptable in a society
like
this?

The Texan : I got it from the highest authority in etiquette.

The Hostess ; Really? Tell me more.

See below

The Texan : I was in England and was invited to a reception in Buckingham
Palace, and the Queen came to me and said, you may be able to arrive
dressed
like this in New York, but you can't do it here !!!

-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
quotes in the subject
and the body of the message
Interesting... of course President Bush probably wears only his best
dress Justins ( top of the line cowboy boots) with his tuxedo whenever
out in
society rather than his work boots. I think if He takes his stetson
along,
that is left in the cloak room.
Sincerely,

-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
quotes in the subject and the body of the message

it seems that the Maud Gournay you have marrying Roger Clifford was a widow
of Hugh Gournay, who died in 1238
Grant to William de Cantilupo the younger, his heirs and assigns, for
a fine of 500 marks, of the custody of the lands, &c. of Juliana, the
daughter and heir of Hugh de Gurnay, with the marriage of the said
Juliana, together with the custody and marriage of the child (pueri) when
born, whereof Maud late the wife of the said Hugh says she is pregnant;
on condition that if the said Juliana or the child die before they come of
age, the said William, his heirs or assigns, shall bo quit of what then
remains to be paid of the said fine
this is from CPR Henry III, vol 3, page 227, dated July 23 1238

Thanks. I had had a question mark over who the father of Millicent
Gournay was. This Millicent married Amaury VI, Count of Evreux
(d.s.p. bef Nov 1213) and then William Cantilupe "the younger" (d
1251).

I knew that Millicent had to be born sometime in 1180/90 but didn't
have enough details to exclude Hugh VI and Maud as her parents.

However if Maud was "pregnant" in 1238 that definitely excludes her as
Millicent's mother, so it must be that Millicent is the daughter of
Hugh V by Julianna Dammartin

it seems that the Maud Gournay you have marrying Roger Clifford was a widow
of Hugh Gournay, who died in 1238
Grant to William de Cantilupo the younger, his heirs and assigns, for
a fine of 500 marks, of the custody of the lands, &c. of Juliana, the
daughter and heir of Hugh de Gurnay, with the marriage of the said
Juliana, together with the custody and marriage of the child (pueri) when
born, whereof Maud late the wife of the said Hugh says she is pregnant;
on condition that if the said Juliana or the child die before they come of
age, the said William, his heirs or assigns, shall bo quit of what then
remains to be paid of the said fine
this is from CPR Henry III, vol 3, page 227, dated July 23 1238
I am still trying to locate a possible maiden name for Maud.

-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject
and the body of the message
Dear Ken,
" the name Jezebel came to be used as slang for impure
women on account of Je-ze-ba`al, daughter of Eth- Ba`al, King of the Phoenician
city-state who married Ahab, son of Omri, King of Israel. She was in fact
Ahab`s faithful wife but she led him to turn his face away from Yahweh, the
Jew`s name for God and to worship Ba`al in his place.
Sincerely,
James W
Cummings
Dixmont,
Maine USA

"Swinton, John (c.1620-1679), politician, was the eldest son of Sir
Alexander Swinton (c.1600-1652) of Swinton, and his wife, Margaret,
daughter of James Home of Framepath, Berwickshire. His younger brother
was Sir Alexander Swinton, Lord Mersington. He was trained as a lawyer,
and in 1645 he married Margaret (d. 1662), daughter of William Stewart,
second Lord Blantyre. They had at least four children."
--
"Swinton, Sir Alexander, Lord Mersington (1621x30?–1700), judge, was
probably born between 1621 and 1630, the second son of Sir Alexander
Swinton (c.1600–1652) of Swinton in Merse, Berwickshire, and his wife,
Margaret, daughter of James Home of Framepath and St Bothans. John
Swinton (c.1620–1679), a leading figure in the Cromwellian
administration in Scotland, was his elder brother. His father was
sheriff of Berwickshire in 1641–5 and represented the county in
parliament from 1644 to 1645. He was educated at the University of
Edinburgh, graduating in 1651. In that year he was captured, and his
brother Robert killed, fighting for Charles II at the battle of
Worcester. The family were staunch presbyterians and their allegiance
depended on the young king's signature to the solemn league and
covenant. John Swinton's importance to Cromwell secured Alexander's
release after a short period in prison. He settled into obscurity in the
1650s.

Mersington was married twice, first, on 29 March 1653, to Eleanor
(sometimes Helen or Helenor) Nisbit (d. 1666), with whom he had three
sons and two daughters, then in 1666 to Alison Skene of Hallyards, with
whom he had three sons and five daughters."

In history most of the time it is indicated, when death was unnatural, how
women died.

Elisabeth de Vendome, in December 999 was boiled to death

Eleonore de Guzman in 1351 was strangled

Agnes Bernauer in 1435 was drowned in the Danube

Maria of Portugal, wife of Alfonso XI of Castile, was poisoned on orders
of her own father

Jeanne d'Arc died on the stake

Henry VIII had two wives beheaded

For Inez de Castro, "wife" of Pedro I of Portugal, I can only find she was
"murdered".
Does anyone know how she died?

With many thanks
Leo van de Pas,
Canberra, Australia

-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Will Johnson has tried to give me nightmares, not only with her being
stabbed to death, but also with the gruesome spectacle provided by her
husband when he became king. Many thanks for these leads.
With best wishes
Leo van de Pas

In history most of the time it is indicated, when death was unnatural,
how
women died.

Elisabeth de Vendome, in December 999 was boiled to death

Eleonore de Guzman in 1351 was strangled

Agnes Bernauer in 1435 was drowned in the Danube

Maria of Portugal, wife of Alfonso XI of Castile, was poisoned on orders
of her own father

Jeanne d'Arc died on the stake

Henry VIII had two wives beheaded

For Inez de Castro, "wife" of Pedro I of Portugal, I can only find she
was
"murdered".
Does anyone know how she died?

With many thanks
Leo van de Pas,
Canberra, Australia

-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
quotes in the subject and the body of the message

-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Would the Scottish Chronicles Scotum Chronicum be a good secondary source?
Would the Work by A. O. Anderson have a reference to contemporaries who saw
what happened? One work by this author is Kings and Kingship in Early
Scotland. What about the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles would it have a reference to the
death of Duncan I?
Le

-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject
and the body of the message
Dear Le,
Very doubtful. Various Kings of Alba killing each other
was in no sense noteworthy. It happened with some frequency, for instance,
King Kenneth III was killed in 1005 by King Malcolm II who was perhaps murdered
in 1034 after instigating the murders of Maelbrigte , his brother Findlaech
who was Macbeth`s father, Gillecomghain, the 1st husband of Macbeth`s future
wife Gruoch and father by her of King Lulach who preceded King Malcolm III in
1058. In addition Kenneth III was responsible for the death of his
predecessor Conststantine III / IV ln 997.
See various articles on wikipedia in the
Encyclopaedia Brittainica for starters.note Constantine used to be known as "
IV" rather than "III" 'modern historians' have decided to no longer refer
to Constantine I, King of the Scots as well as the Picts from 819-820 as
such.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA

Am I right in observing that most of us here that would have this
ancestry, would have it *only* by descents form the Woodvilles - via
Jacquette de Luxembourg-St Pol's decent from Isabella of Anjou, Queen of
Jerusalem (d.1206)? After a cursory look I don't seem to find other
potential ascents.

Am I right in observing that most of us here that would have this
ancestry, would have it *only* by descents form the Woodvilles - via
Jacquette de Luxembourg-St Pol's decent from Isabella of Anjou, Queen of
Jerusalem (d.1206)? After a cursory look I don't seem to find other
potential ascents.

Thanks.

Is there not a similar (alleged) Rupenide ascent for Charlotte de la
Tremouille (1599-1664), Countess of Derby? [I'm not sure if any lucky
posters will have so recent a noble descent ]

Chuck Owens
----
Gateways to ancient Armenia and Parthia? I descend from Charles Chauncy
myself and am unaware of such a line for him. Maybe I need to look
closer.

Tony Hoskins

Sitat:

cancertech7@yahoo.com> 02/16/08 05:52PM
Hello Leo,

You can add my two "gateway" ancestors to your list:

Rev. Charles Chauncy of Massachusetts
Alexander Falconer of Maryland

Best wishes,

Chuck Owens

-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without
the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Chuck Owens
----
Gateways to ancient Armenia and Parthia? I descend from Charles Chauncy
myself and am unaware of such a line for him. Maybe I need to look
closer.

Tony Hoskins

Sitat:

cancertech7@yahoo.com> 02/16/08 05:52PM
Hello Leo,

You can add my two "gateway" ancestors to your list:

Rev. Charles Chauncy of Massachusetts
Alexander Falconer of Maryland

Best wishes,

Chuck Owens

-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without
the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Chuck Owens
----
Gateways to ancient Armenia and Parthia? I descend from Charles Chauncy
myself and am unaware of such a line for him. Maybe I need to look
closer.

Tony Hoskins

Sitat:

cancertech7@yahoo.com> 02/16/08 05:52PM
Hello Leo,

You can add my two "gateway" ancestors to your list:

Rev. Charles Chauncy of Massachusetts
Alexander Falconer of Maryland

Best wishes,

Chuck Owens

-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without
the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Chuck Owens
----
Gateways to ancient Armenia and Parthia? I descend from Charles Chauncy
myself and am unaware of such a line for him. Maybe I need to look
closer.

Tony Hoskins

Sitat:

cancertech7@yahoo.com> 02/16/08 05:52PM
Hello Leo,

You can add my two "gateway" ancestors to your list:

Rev. Charles Chauncy of Massachusetts
Alexander Falconer of Maryland

Best wishes,

Chuck Owens

-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without
the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

I see from another, unrelated news-group (rec.heraldry) I occasionally
contribute to, that the troll Richardson has taken time off from his
campaign to infect this group with sporging, and has been stalking me
there:
MA-R

O, MyAsthmaReturns, Nitwit, Dimbulb, Troll par excellence, sock puppet
for John Brandon, it seems to all and sundry that YOU are stalking
SGM's Richardson HERE! Ipso facto, you be STALKING Troll El Numero
Uno!

You already said that, you silly little man. Why don't you go and surf
or something? Your inane ramblings were cross-posted to no less than
five groups. I imagine they're all as sick of you as we are.
Merilyn

D. Spencer Hines wrote:

Sitat:

Quite True...

Pogue Peter, who has several little sock puppets, has indeed turned himself
into a Postmenopausal Net Nanny Par Excellence.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

letiTiAflufF@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f9b297ee-4e06-414b-805c-89ba48f2b411@d5g2000hsc.googlegroups.com. ..

I see from another, unrelated news-group (rec.heraldry) I occasionally
contribute to, that the troll Richardson has taken time off from his
campaign to infect this group with sporging, and has been stalking me
there:
MA-R

O, MyAsthmaReturns, Nitwit, Dimbulb, Troll par excellence, sock puppet
for John Brandon, it seems to all and sundry that YOU are stalking
SGM's Richardson HERE! Ipso facto, you be STALKING Troll El Numero
Uno!

-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Scholars here cite visitations of pedigrees written
as hearsay evidence by a visitor talking to a biased gent, and
scholars here accept such as contemporary, even though in
many visitations they are further away in time than>>

---------------------------------------------------------------------- --------
---
We do not accept these as contemporary. In fact many times we state that
visitations are only good for a few generations at most. That does not even
mean they are good for that. They are evidence, not proof. Just as your
source is evidence not proof.

Scholars here cite visitations of pedigrees written
as hearsay evidence by a visitor talking to a biased gent, and
scholars here accept such as contemporary, even though in
many visitations they are further away in time than

---------------------------------------------------------------------- --------
---
We do not accept these as contemporary. In fact many times we state that
visitations are only good for a few generations at most. That does not
even
mean they are good for that. They are evidence, not proof. Just as your
source is evidence not proof.

All sources have to stand criticism, no sources are waterproof.

To say that 1082 is contemporary with 1040 crosses the same interval as to
say that 2008 is contemporary with 1966.

Julie Christie won an Oscar in 1966 and is nominated for one she deserves to
win in 2008, but that doesn't exactly telescope the past 40 years. A
journalist writing in the USA today about the death of an imposing figure
elsewhere in the same hemispherere some decades ago, say the killing of Che
Guevara in 1967, has far better access to truly contemporary accounts than
we can suppose Marianus in Germany had to any personal memories from
Scotland at a time when he was a boy in Ireland.

Contemporaneity in medieval sources is of course relative: monastic annals
may have been compiled at different times from scattered records that were
actually written down at the time of the events described. Sometimes these
earlier sources are known, usually the annals of connected religious houses,
and even then there are frequently changes of detail, emphasis and/or dates
in the later version from an original that is otherwise phrased in very
similar terms.

But in the case of Marianus we know that he wrote his universal chronicle
all of a piece at the end of his life, carefully by the standards of his
time but still with many errors, and for most of it including the death of
Duncan (about which he tells us very little anyway) we have no record of his
sources.

Scholars here cite visitations of pedigrees written
as hearsay evidence by a visitor talking to a biased gent, and
scholars here accept such as contemporary, even though in
many visitations they are further away in time than

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- ---
---
We do not accept these as contemporary. In fact many times we state that
visitations are only good for a few generations at most. That does not even
mean they are good for that. They are evidence, not proof. Just as your
source is evidence not proof.

All sources have to stand criticism, no sources are waterproof.

Your hero Leaping Leo Leotards the Sain has his sources in rain
jackets

"Merilyn Pedrick" <merilyn.pedr...@internode.on.net> wrote in message
You already said that, Peter, you silly little man. Why don't you go
and surf or something? Your inane ramblings from Australia were
cross-posted to no less than five groups. I imagine they're all as sick
of you as we are.

The archive is every bit as replete with his flagrant self-contradictions as
it is with his tiresome repetitions. And if Hines keeps coming here, so will
reminders of his forked tongue.

Ole Scottish Proverb:

He who speak with forked tongue,
get flummoxed with forked tongue

Stupored Peter sat on a wall,
holdin hanz with Tafty Dumpty,
All the forked tongues, and all the flummoxed hanz
couldn't keep them silly forkers apart, a minute
so they fell to their yolked deaths
spilt eggs and milk, making an omelet mess

"I called up the 26 generations from Volgaeses and in the 26th
generation there was only one with further descendants,
Khach'ik Gagik II Ardzouni who was born about 879. From him I have a
line (without siblings) to Hethum II of Lampron who had two children
with descendants."

Hello Leo,

I wonder if you could clarify. Given the dicovery of the unbreliable
source which you mention, does this in your opinion leave in effect or
invalidate the would be Vologaeses descent a number of us here would
have through descent from Jacquette de Luxembourg-St Pol? The salient
lineage of this would be:

Like all such works on possible descents from antiquity, I realize that
Settipani's new work will be highly speculative, but given the fact that
he's looking at Armenian and Byzantine families, I'm wondering if anyone
who's managed to see a copy might not be able to add something to this
discussion. In particular, I'm wondering what he has to say (if anything)
about the cluster of families (such as the Phokas and Skleros, etc.) that
most recent scholarship seems to indicate produced the Empress Theophano,
wife of Otto II.

First Mr. Evans gave me a timely warning and then someone off-list pointed
out to me the unreliability of one sourse. This source has been removed
with the information it contained.

In my own system I can only display 26 generations of descendants and
Vologaes is many many more generations removed from us today. I called up
the 26 generations from Volgaeses and in the 26th generation there was
only one with further descendants,
Khach'ik Gagik II Ardzouni who was born about 879. From him I have a line
(without siblings) to Hethum II of Lampron who had two children with
descendants.

I have made a file with twenty geneations of descendants of Hethum II, if
any is interested I will send it.
With best wishes
Leo van de Pas

-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
quotes in the subject and the body of the message

-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
quotes in the subject and the body of the message

-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
quotes in the subject and the body of the message

"Townships: Salford," A History of the County of Lancaster: Volume 4
(1911), pp. 204-217; at www.british-history.ac.uk states that In
Ordsall Hall "there is a good plaster panel of Jacobean style over
the fireplace with the quarterly shield of Radcliffe between four
roses:
1. Two bends engrailed, with a label of three points (Radcliffe);
2. Two bars, and over all a bend (Leigh);
3. Three billets and a chief;
4. A fesse between three garbs (Sandbach)"

I have been unable to identify the family for the arms "Three billets
and a chief."

A Sandbach pedigree in J. P. Earwaker, The History of the Ancient
Parish of Sandbach, Co. Chester : Including theTwo Chapelries of
Holmes Chapel and Goostry : From Original Records (London: The
Hansard Publishing Union, Limited, 1890), p. 3, shows that Richard de
Radcliffe (died 1380) married Matilda de Legh, the daughter of John
de Legh of Booths and Elizabeth de Sandbach, the daughter of Richard
de Sandbach (died after 1337).

A Leigh of Staffordshire pedigree in Collections for a History of
Staffordshire, Vol. IV (London: Harrison and Sons, 1883); p. 109; at
books.google.com, shows that [an earlier] Richard de Sandbach [died
1307] was the son of Roger de Sandbach and Cecilia de Leigh, the
daughter of Robert de Leigh of Staffordshire and Matilda.

"Townships: Salford," A History of the County of Lancaster: Volume 4
(1911), pp. 204-217; at www.british-history.ac.uk states that In
Ordsall Hall "there is a good plaster panel of Jacobean style over
the fireplace with the quarterly shield of Radcliffe between four
roses:
1. Two bends engrailed, with a label of three points (Radcliffe);
2. Two bars, and over all a bend (Leigh);
3. Three billets and a chief;
4. A fesse between three garbs (Sandbach)"

I have been unable to identify the family for the arms "Three billets
and a chief."

A Sandbach pedigree in J. P. Earwaker, The History of the Ancient
Parish of Sandbach, Co. Chester : Including theTwo Chapelries of
Holmes Chapel and Goostry : From Original Records (London: The
Hansard Publishing Union, Limited, 1890), p. 3, shows that Richard de
Radcliffe (died 1380) married Matilda de Legh, the daughter of John
de Legh of Booths and Elizabeth de Sandbach, the daughter of Richard
de Sandbach (died after 1337).

A Leigh of Staffordshire pedigree in Collections for a History of
Staffordshire, Vol. IV (London: Harrison and Sons, 1883); p. 109; at
books.google.com, shows that [an earlier] Richard de Sandbach [died
1307] was the son of Roger de Sandbach and Cecilia de Leigh, the
daughter of Robert de Leigh of Staffordshire and Matilda.

"Townships: Salford," A History of the County of Lancaster: Volume 4
(1911), pp. 204-217; at www.british-history.ac.uk states that In
Ordsall Hall "there is a good plaster panel of Jacobean style over
the fireplace with the quarterly shield of Radcliffe between four
roses:
1. Two bends engrailed, with a label of three points (Radcliffe);
2. Two bars, and over all a bend (Leigh);
3. Three billets and a chief;
4. A fesse between three garbs (Sandbach)"

I have been unable to identify the family for the arms "Three billets
and a chief."

A Sandbach pedigree in J. P. Earwaker, The History of the Ancient
Parish of Sandbach, Co. Chester : Including theTwo Chapelries of
Holmes Chapel and Goostry : From Original Records (London: The
Hansard Publishing Union, Limited, 1890), p. 3, shows that Richard de
Radcliffe (died 1380) married Matilda de Legh, the daughter of John
de Legh of Booths and Elizabeth de Sandbach, the daughter of Richard
de Sandbach (died after 1337).

A Leigh of Staffordshire pedigree in Collections for a History of
Staffordshire, Vol. IV (London: Harrison and Sons, 1883); p. 109; at
books.google.com, shows that [an earlier] Richard de Sandbach [died
1307] was the son of Roger de Sandbach and Cecilia de Leigh, the
daughter of Robert de Leigh of Staffordshire and Matilda.

"Townships: Salford," A History of the County of Lancaster: Volume 4
(1911), pp. 204-217; at www.british-history.ac.uk states that In
Ordsall Hall "there is a good plaster panel of Jacobean style over
the fireplace with the quarterly shield of Radcliffe between four
roses:
1. Two bends engrailed, with a label of three points (Radcliffe);
2. Two bars, and over all a bend (Leigh);
3. Three billets and a chief;
4. A fesse between three garbs (Sandbach)"

I have been unable to identify the family for the arms "Three billets
and a chief."

A Sandbach pedigree in J. P. Earwaker, The History of the Ancient
Parish of Sandbach, Co. Chester : Including theTwo Chapelries of
Holmes Chapel and Goostry : From Original Records (London: The
Hansard Publishing Union, Limited, 1890), p. 3, shows that Richard de
Radcliffe (died 1380) married Matilda de Legh, the daughter of John
de Legh of Booths and Elizabeth de Sandbach, the daughter of Richard
de Sandbach (died after 1337).

A Leigh of Staffordshire pedigree in Collections for a History of
Staffordshire, Vol. IV (London: Harrison and Sons, 1883); p. 109; at
books.google.com, shows that [an earlier] Richard de Sandbach [died
1307] was the son of Roger de Sandbach and Cecilia de Leigh, the
daughter of Robert de Leigh of Staffordshire and Matilda.

"Townships: Salford," A History of the County of Lancaster: Volume 4
(1911), pp. 204-217; atwww.british-history.ac.ukstates that In
Ordsall Hall "there is a good plaster panel of Jacobean style over
the fireplace with the quarterly shield of Radcliffe between four
roses:
1. Two bends engrailed, with a label of three points (Radcliffe);
2. Two bars, and over all a bend (Leigh);
3. Three billets and a chief;
4. A fesse between three garbs (Sandbach)"

I have been unable to identify the family for the arms "Three billets
and a chief."

A Sandbach pedigree in J. P. Earwaker, The History of the Ancient
Parish of Sandbach, Co. Chester : Including theTwo Chapelries of
Holmes Chapel and Goostry : From Original Records (London: The
Hansard Publishing Union, Limited, 1890), p. 3, shows that Richard de
Radcliffe (died 1380) married Matilda de Legh, the daughter of John
de Legh of Booths and Elizabeth de Sandbach, the daughter of Richard
de Sandbach (died after 1337).

A Leigh of Staffordshire pedigree in Collections for a History of
Staffordshire, Vol. IV (London: Harrison and Sons, 1883); p. 109; at
books.google.com, shows that [an earlier] Richard de Sandbach [died
1307] was the son of Roger de Sandbach and Cecilia de Leigh, the
daughter of Robert de Leigh of Staffordshire and Matilda.

This shows (again), very concisely, how Bill fails to understand
scholarship.

Yes, Nat - he not only confuses consensus with scholarship (that of
course requires the overturning of consensus when necessary), but he
has rather odd ideas of battle and belonging:

"the consensus on the question of manner of death of Duncan I The
Gracious King of Scots was from three contemporary records, that he
was either killed in battle by his own men..."

I wonder, at what point in the proceedings did they cease to be
Duncan's "own men". Was it from the instant they raised their weapons
against him, or did he perhaps order them to attack intending but
failing to kill his "own men" instead, so that effectively he died of
hoisting with his own petar? Or were these disaffected souls just some
of his "own men" while others who remained true to their allegiance
died fighting around him?

No doubt a fourth source available to Bill Arnold but not to
scholarship, or so far to consensus for that matter, can tell us the
answer.

On Feb 18, 6:40 pm, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote:
< Human Life is Arbitrary.
<
< So, having two different numbering systems for peers is quite
appropriate.
<
< It enriches the Human Experience and allows us to compare,
supplement and
< contrast.
<
< Further, look at the systems for designating ancestors of a given
< individual...
<
< DSH

I noted the name of William Beche with the name John de la Hulle of
Whitchurch as witnesses below. Do you have further information on
this Sir William?
I have notes on the Aldsworth and Sussex Beche families but this seems
to be yet another.
Thomas de la Beche of Whitchirche Inq. 1294 13 Nov 21 Edw. I. Brother
Roger and names this Roger’s son, Geoffrey, 14, as his next heir.
Property in Wiltshire La Grave by Wokkyngeham “held of Roger atte
Beche his brother in chief by service,” Witchurche, Oxon, manor was
sometime held by Roger de la Ware of the honor of Walingford.
Thanks for any further information.
Pat
On Feb 20, 2008, at 1:09 AM, Tony Ingham wrote:

Sitat:

Mr. Gurney asserts that Maud, widow of Hugh de Gournay married Roger
de
Clifford and offers the following.

The record of the house of Gournay. By Daniel Gurney. p.220. (1843)
In the same year as this deed was made 22 Hen. III. 1238, Hugh de
Gurnay, the last male of the family, lords of Mapledurham-Gurnay, was
deceased, leaving and only daughter and his wife, Matilda de Gurnay,
surviving ; upon which occurrence William de Cantilupe, junior, gave
five hundred marks as a fine for having the custody of the lands and
wardship of his said daughter and heir, and also of the child unborn
wherewith Maud, his widow, did then travail.
In the following year the King by writ with his own teste at Windsor
27th Aug. 1239, commanded the Sheriff of Oxfordshire to respite the
demand of 230£. half a mark, and of two casks of wine, which under a
summons from the royal Exchequer he sought to recover from the manor
of
Mapledurham, of which Matilda, the relict of Hugh de Gurnay, was a
tenant in dower, of the debts which the same Hugh owed to the King,
until fifteen days from the feast of St. Michael, in order that it
might
then be discussed before the Barons of the Exchequer, whether it ought
to answer thereof or not. The wife of William de Cantilupe, junior,
was
sister of the deceased Hugh de Gurnay, and relict of Aumary Comte of
Evreux in Normandy, and Earl of Gloucester in England ; and from such
connection he readily obtained the wardship of his wife's niece,
who, it
is probable, was quite an infant, scarcely a year old, when this
succession vested. Prior to 38 Hen. III. 1254, this heiress was the
wife of William Bardulf, junior, and the above debt of her father
continued still unliquitated, as appears from this entry upon the Fine
Rolls of that year : Rex respectum dedit Willelmo Bardulf juniori et
Juliane uxori ejus de ccxxiii libris et duobus doliis vini que ab eis
exigunter per summonitionem scaccarii usque sd festum Sancti Johannis
Baptiste proximo futurum. Et mandatum est Baronibus de Scaccario quod
predictum respectum eis habere facias. Testibus, A. Regina et R. Com.
Cornubie apud Windlesorum xiii die Februarii. During her tenancy of
the manor of Mapledurham-Gurnay as her dower, Matilda de Gurnay
obtained
the wardship of land of the heir of Roger de Kingston, who had held in
Kingston, com. Berks, one fief of the Honour of Dudley belonging to
Roger de Someri, and she took to her second husband Roger de Clifford,
of Bridge Sollers, com. Heref.

The record of the house of Gournay. By Daniel Gurney. p.221.
* In the Rotuli Hundredorum we have the Inquests made before the
justices itinerent in the county of Oxford, 39 Hen. III. 1255, of the
rights and liberties, and other matters appertaining to the King ;
where
under Hundredum de Langden we have these names among twelve knights
and
others jurors of the Hundred aforesaid : Sir Robert de Mapeldurham,
William Morin, William de Beche, John de la Hulle de Whitchurche, and
Ralph Druval ; and in the finding, respecting such as did not come in
obedience to the precept, among them were Geoffrey de Chanse, John de
Trethorn, Geoffrey de Codray, the prior of Okeburn, Alan Basset, and
William de Huntercombe ; also the Earl of Oxford and Ralph Fitz-
Nicholas
did not come. The said twelve knights and others jurors reported that
Geoffrey de Chanse held in capite of the lord of the honour of
Wallingford three hides of land with the appurtenances in Mapledurham
parva by the service of half a knight's fee, and which were worth
annually 10£., and they do suit at the court of the honour of
Wallingford. They also note the tenure of Geoffrey de Bodre of two
carucates of land in Gatehampton, of Henry Dravel in Garinges, of
William de Huntercombe in Newenham, and of Alan Basset in Yppesden, of
the same honour
The verdict of the hundred of Benefeld, inclusive of William de
Juvene of Caversham and Thomas de Englefield among the jurors, was to
this effect ; "they say that Mapeldurham is of the fief of Gorney, and
does suit to the hundred court ; and they say, that four years ago
malefactors came into the park of Mapledurham, who after hue and cry
fled, so that no one knew where they went, nevertheless suspicion fell
upon a certain individual, named Nicholas de Mongewell, who gave to
Sir
Roger de Clifford, who is lord of the vill and the park, a falcon to
have his peace." The jurors of the hundred of Langtre also reported
that John de Can.la, the liegeman of Nicholas de Mangevelle, and
Nicholas chaplain of Mungewell, entered the park of Roger de
Clifford in
Mapeldurham without his license, wherefor Nicholas de Mungewell made
fine of 20 s. to the said Roger for his man. From these entries we
have
ample proof that Matildis, the widow of the last Hugh de Gornay,
remarried this Roger de Clifford, who was lord not only of Mapeldurham
in her right, but also of Kingston, com. Berks, a manor in her custody
during the minority of the heir.
In other extracts of Inquisitions, 4 Edw. I. 1276, the jurors of the
hundred of Benfield report that the Earl of Cornwall, has view of
frank-pledge at Benfield, Lachebroke, and Mapuldurham, which view
customarily belonged to the manor of Bessington; and in reply to the
inquiry as to such as had newly appropriated to themselves free
chace or
warren, they answer that William Bardolf has warren in Mapledurham,
but
they know not by what warranty or from what time.

Supplement to The record of the house of Gournay. By Daniel Gurney.
(1858)
Tony Ingham

-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com
with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and
the body of the message

I don't know if this is far-fetched or not, but I can't help wonderind if
you might have some idea about whether or not the Bellers/Belers of Ab
Kettleby are connected to this family? Specifically I'm wondering about Sir
James Bellers (d. 1411) of Ab Kettleby, who was first married to Lettice
Prest.

Also, in at least some Digby pedigrees the Everard Digby who was killed in
the Battle of Towton, on 28-March-1461, is show as the son of Simon Digby of
Tilton (d. 1441/42) by a Joan Bellers, daughter of a different Sir James
Bellers. Any idea if or how these Bellers are connected to the Belers of
Kirby Bellers?

Thanks.

Jeff Duvall

<mjcar@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:610a3b38-bf14-4c2e-9e84-b769ae53bac1@u10g2000prn.googlegroups.com ...

Sitat:

The Belers family are ancestral to the Cromwells (Amice de Belers
married Ralph Cromwell).

The author of the entry on James Bellers the son discusses the death of Sir James Bellers in the following way: "...for Sir James, who had represented Leicestershire in four Parliaments between 1376 and 1383, probably lived on until 1411." The author's initials are listed as L.S.W. I don't have the vols. available right now, but perhaps if anyone else has access they can fill in the name. As for the sources regarding Sir James, they are listed as: "Leics. Village Notes, ed. Farnham, vi. 311-12; CFR (Calendar of Fine Rolls), viii 380."

<< Perhaps I should have said ca. 1411. The date came from the entry for his son, James Bellers (d. 1421), in vol. 2 of Roskell's "The House of Commons 1386-1421" (1992). >>

Well does ca 1411 mean "anytime between 1390 and 1450?"
I don't know about Roskell, some of his stuff is wildly inaccurate. Some is
very good however. But I'd question such an exact statement without some sort
of source to back it up.**************Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch
video on AOL Living.
(http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-cam pos-duffy/2050827?NCID=aolcmp00300000002598)

<< The ancestry of Everad Digby's mother (assuming that he is correctly placed as the son of Simon Digby and Joan Bellers) is a complete mystery (aside from her father being identified as a Sir James Bellers), as far as I know. >>

It would help us, if you could cite your source more exactly so we can review
what it states.**************Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL
Living.
(http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-cam pos-duffy/2050827?NCID=aolcmp00300000002598)

John Heriz was the grandfather of Margaret de la Rivere, wife of Sir Roger
de Belers. Rosie Bevan has posted on this family in the archives under the
thread, "The early lineage of the Loudhams of Notts." See also Vis. of
Notts. & Thoroton's History of Notts.

Did anyone happen to figure out how to edit a Wikipedia article? I'm
trying to edit a DIFFERENT article, and while I know HTML, Wikipedia has its
own very complicated tag system.>>

--------------------------------------------------------
That's true Dora, and some articles are tag happy. But in general, just
ignore the tags and add what text you want to the appropriate places. When you
are in the edit screen, some of the tags are actually displayed as buttons
along the top of the edit box.

Washington and George III were actually cousins.
"Hal" <SpamTh...@gmail.com> wrote in message

An honourable US tradition since Washington, and so shouldn't be held
against him, or against heroes like Benedict Arnold.

Hal

Gee, Washington was a traitor to the US? Who knew.

George III took it personally. Did you know that history started
before 1776?

Sure did. Washington nearly joined British navy. George Washington,
the Father of Our Country, once wanted to become a naval officer--
in the British Royal Navy! But his mother refused to let him sign
up--
and the course of history was changed. In 1746, Washington's older
half brother Lawrence wrote George, then 14, urging him to join the
Royal Navy. lawrence, 28, had served as a captain in the marines in
the British fleet fighting the Spanish in South America, and had fired
young George's imagination with tales of naval battles and ships. In
his letter, he informed young George that there was an opening for
a midshipman on a British Royal Navy ship then sailing Virginia
waters.
George's seachest was already on frigate Bellona in Potomac when
his mother arrived and her tears prevailed and he gave up his
commission. Certainly Washington's mother altered America's destiny
and the course of the Revolution. George wanted that naval career--
but
because of his age, his mother Mary Ball Washington had to give her
permission. Mary was extremely possessive of George, and decided
against it--firmly. That put an end his hopes of becoming a British
midshipman, and he went on to become the first President of the
United States. [source]: American History illustrated, Feb. 1987.

Some Scottish culture courtesy of Spencer Hines
The Rebel Surprise Near Tamai
TWAS on the 22nd of March, in the year 1885,
That the Arabs rushed like a mountain torrent in full drive,
And quickly attacked General M'Neill's transport-zereba,
But in a short time they were forced to withdraw.

And in the suddenness of surprise the men were carried away,
Also camels, mules, and horses were thrown into wild disarray,
By thousands of the Arabs that in ambush lay,
But our brave British heroes held the enemy at bay.

There was a multitude of camels heaped upon one another,
Kicking and screaming, while many of them did smother,
Owing to the heavy pressure of the entangled mass,
That were tramping o'er one another as they lay on the grass.

The scene was indescribable, and sickening to behold,
To see the mass of innocent brutes lying stiff and cold,
And the moaning cries of them were pitiful to hear,
Likewise the cries of the dying men that lay wounded in the rear.

Then General McNeill ordered his men to form in solid square,
Whilst deafening shouts and shrieks of animals did tend the air,
And the rush of stampeded camels made a fearful din,
While the Arabs they did yell, and fiendishly did grin.

Then the gallant Marines formed the east side of the square,
While clouds of dust and smoke did darken the air,
And on the west side the Berkshire were engaged in the fight,
Firing steadily and cooly with all their might.

Still camp followers were carried along by the huge animal mass,
And along the face of the zereba 'twas difficult to pass,
Because the mass of brutes swept on in wild dismay,
Which caused the troops to be thrown into disorderly array.

Then Indians and Bluejackets were all mixed together back to back,
And for half-an-hour the fire and din didn't slack;
And none but steady troops could have stood that fearful shock,
Because against overwhelming numbers they stood as firm as a rock.

The Arabs crept among the legs of the animals without any dread,
But by the British bullets many were killed dead,
And left dead on the field and weltering in their gore,
Whilst the dying moans of the camels made a hideous roar.

Then General McNeill to his men did say,
Forward! my lads, and keep them at bay!
Come, make ready, my men, and stand to your arms,
And don't be afraid of war's alarms

So forward! and charge them in front and rear,
And remember you are fighting for your Queen and country dear,
Therefore, charge them with your bayonets, left and right,
And we'll soon put this rebel horde to flight.

Then forward at the bayonet-charge they did rush,
And the rebel horde they soon did crush;
And by the charge of the bayonet they kept them at bay,
And in confusion and terror they all fled away.

The Marines held their own while engaged hand-to-hand,
And the courage they displayed was really very grand;
But it would be unfair to praise one corps more than another,
Because each man fought as if he'd been avenging the death of a brother.

The Berkshire men and the Naval Brigade fought with might and main,
And, thank God! the British have defeated the Arabs again,
And have added fresh laurels to their name,
Which will be enrolled in the book of fame.
'Tis lamentable to think of the horrors of war,
That men must leave their homes and go abroad afar,
To fight for their Queen and country in a foreign land,
Beneath the whirlwind's drifting scorching sand.

But whatsoever God wills must come to pass,
The fall of a sparrow, or a tiny blade of grass;
Also, man must fall at home by His command,
Just equally the same as in a foreign land.

Some Scottish culture courtesy of Spencer Hines
The Rebel Surprise Near Tamai
TWAS on the 22nd of March, in the year 1885,
That the Arabs rushed like a mountain torrent in full drive,
And quickly attacked General M'Neill's transport-zereba,
But in a short time they were forced to withdraw.

And in the suddenness of surprise the men were carried away,
Also camels, mules, and horses were thrown into wild disarray,
By thousands of the Arabs that in ambush lay,
But our brave British heroes held the enemy at bay.

There was a multitude of camels heaped upon one another,
Kicking and screaming, while many of them did smother,
Owing to the heavy pressure of the entangled mass,
That were tramping o'er one another as they lay on the grass.

The scene was indescribable, and sickening to behold,
To see the mass of innocent brutes lying stiff and cold,
And the moaning cries of them were pitiful to hear,
Likewise the cries of the dying men that lay wounded in the rear.

Then General McNeill ordered his men to form in solid square,
Whilst deafening shouts and shrieks of animals did tend the air,
And the rush of stampeded camels made a fearful din,
While the Arabs they did yell, and fiendishly did grin.

Then the gallant Marines formed the east side of the square,
While clouds of dust and smoke did darken the air,
And on the west side the Berkshire were engaged in the fight,
Firing steadily and cooly with all their might.

Still camp followers were carried along by the huge animal mass,
And along the face of the zereba 'twas difficult to pass,
Because the mass of brutes swept on in wild dismay,
Which caused the troops to be thrown into disorderly array.

Then Indians and Bluejackets were all mixed together back to back,
And for half-an-hour the fire and din didn't slack;
And none but steady troops could have stood that fearful shock,
Because against overwhelming numbers they stood as firm as a rock.

The Arabs crept among the legs of the animals without any dread,
But by the British bullets many were killed dead,
And left dead on the field and weltering in their gore,
Whilst the dying moans of the camels made a hideous roar.

Then General McNeill to his men did say,
Forward! my lads, and keep them at bay!
Come, make ready, my men, and stand to your arms,
And don't be afraid of war's alarms

So forward! and charge them in front and rear,
And remember you are fighting for your Queen and country dear,
Therefore, charge them with your bayonets, left and right,
And we'll soon put this rebel horde to flight.

Then forward at the bayonet-charge they did rush,
And the rebel horde they soon did crush;
And by the charge of the bayonet they kept them at bay,
And in confusion and terror they all fled away.

The Marines held their own while engaged hand-to-hand,
And the courage they displayed was really very grand;
But it would be unfair to praise one corps more than another,
Because each man fought as if he'd been avenging the death of a brother.

The Berkshire men and the Naval Brigade fought with might and main,
And, thank God! the British have defeated the Arabs again,
And have added fresh laurels to their name,
Which will be enrolled in the book of fame.
'Tis lamentable to think of the horrors of war,
That men must leave their homes and go abroad afar,
To fight for their Queen and country in a foreign land,
Beneath the whirlwind's drifting scorching sand.

But whatsoever God wills must come to pass,
The fall of a sparrow, or a tiny blade of grass;
Also, man must fall at home by His command,
Just equally the same as in a foreign land.

Some Scottish culture courtesy of Spencer Hines
The Rebel Surprise Near Tamai
TWAS on the 22nd of March, in the year 1885,
That the Arabs rushed like a mountain torrent in full drive,
And quickly attacked General M'Neill's transport-zereba,
But in a short time they were forced to withdraw.

And in the suddenness of surprise the men were carried away,
Also camels, mules, and horses were thrown into wild disarray,
By thousands of the Arabs that in ambush lay,
But our brave British heroes held the enemy at bay.

There was a multitude of camels heaped upon one another,
Kicking and screaming, while many of them did smother,
Owing to the heavy pressure of the entangled mass,
That were tramping o'er one another as they lay on the grass.

The scene was indescribable, and sickening to behold,
To see the mass of innocent brutes lying stiff and cold,
And the moaning cries of them were pitiful to hear,
Likewise the cries of the dying men that lay wounded in the rear.

Then General McNeill ordered his men to form in solid square,
Whilst deafening shouts and shrieks of animals did tend the air,
And the rush of stampeded camels made a fearful din,
While the Arabs they did yell, and fiendishly did grin.

Then the gallant Marines formed the east side of the square,
While clouds of dust and smoke did darken the air,
And on the west side the Berkshire were engaged in the fight,
Firing steadily and cooly with all their might.

Still camp followers were carried along by the huge animal mass,
And along the face of the zereba 'twas difficult to pass,
Because the mass of brutes swept on in wild dismay,
Which caused the troops to be thrown into disorderly array.

Then Indians and Bluejackets were all mixed together back to back,
And for half-an-hour the fire and din didn't slack;
And none but steady troops could have stood that fearful shock,
Because against overwhelming numbers they stood as firm as a rock.

The Arabs crept among the legs of the animals without any dread,
But by the British bullets many were killed dead,
And left dead on the field and weltering in their gore,
Whilst the dying moans of the camels made a hideous roar.

Then General McNeill to his men did say,
Forward! my lads, and keep them at bay!
Come, make ready, my men, and stand to your arms,
And don't be afraid of war's alarms

So forward! and charge them in front and rear,
And remember you are fighting for your Queen and country dear,
Therefore, charge them with your bayonets, left and right,
And we'll soon put this rebel horde to flight.

Then forward at the bayonet-charge they did rush,
And the rebel horde they soon did crush;
And by the charge of the bayonet they kept them at bay,
And in confusion and terror they all fled away.

The Marines held their own while engaged hand-to-hand,
And the courage they displayed was really very grand;
But it would be unfair to praise one corps more than another,
Because each man fought as if he'd been avenging the death of a brother.

The Berkshire men and the Naval Brigade fought with might and main,
And, thank God! the British have defeated the Arabs again,
And have added fresh laurels to their name,
Which will be enrolled in the book of fame.
'Tis lamentable to think of the horrors of war,
That men must leave their homes and go abroad afar,
To fight for their Queen and country in a foreign land,
Beneath the whirlwind's drifting scorching sand.

But whatsoever God wills must come to pass,
The fall of a sparrow, or a tiny blade of grass;
Also, man must fall at home by His command,
Just equally the same as in a foreign land.

Some Scottish culture courtesy of Spencer Hines
The Rebel Surprise Near Tamai
TWAS on the 22nd of March, in the year 1885,
That the Arabs rushed like a mountain torrent in full drive,
And quickly attacked General M'Neill's transport-zereba,
But in a short time they were forced to withdraw.

And in the suddenness of surprise the men were carried away,
Also camels, mules, and horses were thrown into wild disarray,
By thousands of the Arabs that in ambush lay,
But our brave British heroes held the enemy at bay.

There was a multitude of camels heaped upon one another,
Kicking and screaming, while many of them did smother,
Owing to the heavy pressure of the entangled mass,
That were tramping o'er one another as they lay on the grass.

The scene was indescribable, and sickening to behold,
To see the mass of innocent brutes lying stiff and cold,
And the moaning cries of them were pitiful to hear,
Likewise the cries of the dying men that lay wounded in the rear.

Then General McNeill ordered his men to form in solid square,
Whilst deafening shouts and shrieks of animals did tend the air,
And the rush of stampeded camels made a fearful din,
While the Arabs they did yell, and fiendishly did grin.

Then the gallant Marines formed the east side of the square,
While clouds of dust and smoke did darken the air,
And on the west side the Berkshire were engaged in the fight,
Firing steadily and cooly with all their might.

Still camp followers were carried along by the huge animal mass,
And along the face of the zereba 'twas difficult to pass,
Because the mass of brutes swept on in wild dismay,
Which caused the troops to be thrown into disorderly array.

Then Indians and Bluejackets were all mixed together back to back,
And for half-an-hour the fire and din didn't slack;
And none but steady troops could have stood that fearful shock,
Because against overwhelming numbers they stood as firm as a rock.

The Arabs crept among the legs of the animals without any dread,
But by the British bullets many were killed dead,
And left dead on the field and weltering in their gore,
Whilst the dying moans of the camels made a hideous roar.

Then General McNeill to his men did say,
Forward! my lads, and keep them at bay!
Come, make ready, my men, and stand to your arms,
And don't be afraid of war's alarms

So forward! and charge them in front and rear,
And remember you are fighting for your Queen and country dear,
Therefore, charge them with your bayonets, left and right,
And we'll soon put this rebel horde to flight.

Then forward at the bayonet-charge they did rush,
And the rebel horde they soon did crush;
And by the charge of the bayonet they kept them at bay,
And in confusion and terror they all fled away.

The Marines held their own while engaged hand-to-hand,
And the courage they displayed was really very grand;
But it would be unfair to praise one corps more than another,
Because each man fought as if he'd been avenging the death of a brother.

The Berkshire men and the Naval Brigade fought with might and main,
And, thank God! the British have defeated the Arabs again,
And have added fresh laurels to their name,
Which will be enrolled in the book of fame.
'Tis lamentable to think of the horrors of war,
That men must leave their homes and go abroad afar,
To fight for their Queen and country in a foreign land,
Beneath the whirlwind's drifting scorching sand.

But whatsoever God wills must come to pass,
The fall of a sparrow, or a tiny blade of grass;
Also, man must fall at home by His command,
Just equally the same as in a foreign land.

Some Scottish culture courtesy of Spencer Hines
The Rebel Surprise Near Tamai
TWAS on the 22nd of March, in the year 1885,
That the Arabs rushed like a mountain torrent in full drive,
And quickly attacked General M'Neill's transport-zereba,
But in a short time they were forced to withdraw.

And in the suddenness of surprise the men were carried away,
Also camels, mules, and horses were thrown into wild disarray,
By thousands of the Arabs that in ambush lay,
But our brave British heroes held the enemy at bay.

There was a multitude of camels heaped upon one another,
Kicking and screaming, while many of them did smother,
Owing to the heavy pressure of the entangled mass,
That were tramping o'er one another as they lay on the grass.

The scene was indescribable, and sickening to behold,
To see the mass of innocent brutes lying stiff and cold,
And the moaning cries of them were pitiful to hear,
Likewise the cries of the dying men that lay wounded in the rear.

Then General McNeill ordered his men to form in solid square,
Whilst deafening shouts and shrieks of animals did tend the air,
And the rush of stampeded camels made a fearful din,
While the Arabs they did yell, and fiendishly did grin.

Then the gallant Marines formed the east side of the square,
While clouds of dust and smoke did darken the air,
And on the west side the Berkshire were engaged in the fight,
Firing steadily and cooly with all their might.

Still camp followers were carried along by the huge animal mass,
And along the face of the zereba 'twas difficult to pass,
Because the mass of brutes swept on in wild dismay,
Which caused the troops to be thrown into disorderly array.

Then Indians and Bluejackets were all mixed together back to back,
And for half-an-hour the fire and din didn't slack;
And none but steady troops could have stood that fearful shock,
Because against overwhelming numbers they stood as firm as a rock.

The Arabs crept among the legs of the animals without any dread,
But by the British bullets many were killed dead,
And left dead on the field and weltering in their gore,
Whilst the dying moans of the camels made a hideous roar.

Then General McNeill to his men did say,
Forward! my lads, and keep them at bay!
Come, make ready, my men, and stand to your arms,
And don't be afraid of war's alarms

So forward! and charge them in front and rear,
And remember you are fighting for your Queen and country dear,
Therefore, charge them with your bayonets, left and right,
And we'll soon put this rebel horde to flight.

Then forward at the bayonet-charge they did rush,
And the rebel horde they soon did crush;
And by the charge of the bayonet they kept them at bay,
And in confusion and terror they all fled away.

The Marines held their own while engaged hand-to-hand,
And the courage they displayed was really very grand;
But it would be unfair to praise one corps more than another,
Because each man fought as if he'd been avenging the death of a brother.

The Berkshire men and the Naval Brigade fought with might and main,
And, thank God! the British have defeated the Arabs again,
And have added fresh laurels to their name,
Which will be enrolled in the book of fame.
'Tis lamentable to think of the horrors of war,
That men must leave their homes and go abroad afar,
To fight for their Queen and country in a foreign land,
Beneath the whirlwind's drifting scorching sand.

But whatsoever God wills must come to pass,
The fall of a sparrow, or a tiny blade of grass;
Also, man must fall at home by His command,
Just equally the same as in a foreign land.

'The Poetical Works of Lewis Glyn Cothi' Royal Cambrian Inst., 1837;
simply has Thomas Vaughan as the son of Sir Roger Vaughan of Tretower.

' History of the Life of Richard III' by James Gairdner, 1878 has:
"It has been commonly supposed that the Sir Thomas Vaughan put to
death by Richard III, along with Rivers and Lord Richard Grey, was Sir
Thomas Vaughan of Tretower. This is a mistake."

'Grants, Etc., from the Crown During the Reign of Edward the Fifth'
has: p. xv, [fn b.] "In the notes to the Poems of Lewis Glyn Cothi,
printed for the Cymmrodorion, ... in 1837, 8vo., the editor the Rev.
John Jones, M.A. of Christchurch, Oxford, ... and in a pedigree
identifies sir Thomas Vaughan with the son and heir of sir Roger
Vaughan of Tretower, co. Brecon, by Cicely, daughter of Thomas ab
Phylip Vychan , heiress of Talgarth, in the same county; but Johns, in
his History of Brecknockshire ... and Sir Samuel Meyrick, in his notes
to Lewis Dwnn's Visitations of Wales .... state the chamberlain of the
prince of Wales to have been the youngest illegitimate son of Sir
Roger Vaughan of Tretower, by an illegitimate daughter of a prior of
the monastery of Abergavenny... This latter account is probably to be
preferred; and if that is the case we may consider the courtier to be
the same Thomas Vaughan, an esquire for the king's body, who having
married Alianor, the widow of Thomas Browne ...."

Regards
Tom Dunn, Kilbrittain, Co. Cork, Ireland

Sitat:

The following PRO record would seem to prove that Thomas Vaughan late of
Tretower was the son of Robert and Margaret Vaghan:

PRO Web Page: C 1/159/64
Richard Raulyns, son and heir of Alice, late the wife of Thomas Vaughan,
knight. v. Roger Boughchier: Refusal to carry out an award by Oliver King,
secretary to the King.
KB 9/957
Returned oyer and terminer commission, Heref, before John earl of Lincoln,
William Huse, Robert Willoughby and associates at Hereford on 16 May 1486,
under commission of 11 May 1486 for all treasons, etc in Herefordshire (CPR
1485-94, 106): file, treason trials of Thomas Vaughan late of Tretower in the
Marchch of Wales and others
1 Hen VII
E 210/2694
Defeasance by John, Abbot of Westminster, and the Chapter of Llandaff of a
bond given them by Monmouth Priory ( Reynold, prior ) on condition that they
observe their ordinance for the maintenance of a chaplain to celebrate for the
good estate of Thomas Vaghan, knight, Chamberlain to the King and the Prince
of Wales, and for his soul after his death, and for the souls of Robert and
Margaret Vaghan his parents, and for the Prince of Wales : Monm.
1477.

Some Scottish culture courtesy of Spencer Hines
he Rebel Surprise Near Tamai
TWAS on the 22nd of March, in the year 1885,
That the Arabs rushed like a mountain torrent in full drive,
And quickly attacked General M'Neill's transport-zereba,
But in a short time they were forced to withdraw.

And in the suddenness of surprise the men were carried away,
Also camels, mules, and horses were thrown into wild disarray,
By thousands of the Arabs that in ambush lay,
But our brave British heroes held the enemy at bay.

There was a multitude of camels heaped upon one another,
Kicking and screaming, while many of them did smother,
Owing to the heavy pressure of the entangled mass,
That were tramping o'er one another as they lay on the grass.

The scene was indescribable, and sickening to behold,
To see the mass of innocent brutes lying stiff and cold,
And the moaning cries of them were pitiful to hear,
Likewise the cries of the dying men that lay wounded in the rear.

Then General McNeill ordered his men to form in solid square,
Whilst deafening shouts and shrieks of animals did tend the air,
And the rush of stampeded camels made a fearful din,
While the Arabs they did yell, and fiendishly did grin.

Then the gallant Marines formed the east side of the square,
While clouds of dust and smoke did darken the air,
And on the west side the Berkshire were engaged in the fight,
Firing steadily and cooly with all their might.

Still camp followers were carried along by the huge animal mass,
And along the face of the zereba 'twas difficult to pass,
Because the mass of brutes swept on in wild dismay,
Which caused the troops to be thrown into disorderly array.

Then Indians and Bluejackets were all mixed together back to back,
And for half-an-hour the fire and din didn't slack;
And none but steady troops could have stood that fearful shock,
Because against overwhelming numbers they stood as firm as a rock.

The Arabs crept among the legs of the animals without any dread,
But by the British bullets many were killed dead,
And left dead on the field and weltering in their gore,
Whilst the dying moans of the camels made a hideous roar.

Then General McNeill to his men did say,
Forward! my lads, and keep them at bay!
Come, make ready, my men, and stand to your arms,
And don't be afraid of war's alarms

So forward! and charge them in front and rear,
And remember you are fighting for your Queen and country dear,
Therefore, charge them with your bayonets, left and right,
And we'll soon put this rebel horde to flight.

Then forward at the bayonet-charge they did rush,
And the rebel horde they soon did crush;
And by the charge of the bayonet they kept them at bay,
And in confusion and terror they all fled away.

The Marines held their own while engaged hand-to-hand,
And the courage they displayed was really very grand;
But it would be unfair to praise one corps more than another,
Because each man fought as if he'd been avenging the death of a brother.

The Berkshire men and the Naval Brigade fought with might and main,
And, thank God! the British have defeated the Arabs again,
And have added fresh laurels to their name,
Which will be enrolled in the book of fame.
'Tis lamentable to think of the horrors of war,
That men must leave their homes and go abroad afar,
To fight for their Queen and country in a foreign land,
Beneath the whirlwind's drifting scorching sand.

But whatsoever God wills must come to pass,
The fall of a sparrow, or a tiny blade of grass;
Also, man must fall at home by His command,
Just equally the same as in a foreign land.

Washington and George III were actually cousins.
"Hal" <SpamTh...@gmail.com> wrote in message

An honourable US tradition since Washington, and so shouldn't be held
against him, or against heroes like Benedict Arnold.

Hal

Gee, Washington was a traitor to the US? Who knew.

George III took it personally. Did you know that history started
before 1776?

Sure did. Washington nearly joined British navy. George Washington,
the Father of Our Country, once wanted to become a naval officer--
in the British Royal Navy! But his mother refused to let him sign
up--
and the course of history was changed. In 1746, Washington's older
half brother Lawrence wrote George, then 14, urging him to join the
Royal Navy. lawrence, 28, had served as a captain in the marines in
the British fleet fighting the Spanish in South America, and had fired
young George's imagination with tales of naval battles and ships. In
his letter, he informed young George that there was an opening for
a midshipman on a British Royal Navy ship then sailing Virginia
waters.
George's seachest was already on frigate Bellona in Potomac when
his mother arrived and her tears prevailed and he gave up his
commission. Certainly Washington's mother altered America's destiny
and the course of the Revolution. George wanted that naval career--
but
because of his age, his mother Mary Ball Washington had to give her
permission. Mary was extremely possessive of George, and decided
against it--firmly. That put an end his hopes of becoming a British
midshipman, and he went on to become the first President of the
United States. [source]: American History illustrated, Feb. 1987.

aaron

-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject
and the body of the message
George Washington was a Captain in the British militia during the
French and Indian wars just as several other future Continental army officers
were.

The matter of the parentage of Sr Thomas Vaughan was discussed in
print some years ago in a brief note in National Library of Wales
Journal, 8 (1954): 349. The author of this piece made reference to
the defeasance dated 1477, which was mentioned by Adrian in his good
post. The author concluded that Sir Thomas Vaughan's parents were
Robert and Margaret, as stated by Adrian.

'The Poetical Works of Lewis Glyn Cothi' Royal Cambrian Inst., 1837;
simply has Thomas Vaughan as the son of Sir Roger Vaughan of Tretower.

' History of the Life of Richard III' by James Gairdner, 1878 has:
"It has been commonly supposed that the Sir Thomas Vaughan put to
death by Richard III, along with Rivers and Lord Richard Grey, was Sir
Thomas Vaughan of Tretower. This is a mistake."

'Grants, Etc., from the Crown During the Reign of Edward the Fifth'
has: p. xv, [fn b.] "In the notes to the Poems of Lewis Glyn Cothi,
printed for the Cymmrodorion, ... in 1837, 8vo., the editor the Rev.
John Jones, M.A. of Christchurch, Oxford, ... and in a pedigree
identifies sir Thomas Vaughan with the son and heir of sir Roger
Vaughan of Tretower, co. Brecon, by Cicely, daughter of Thomas ab
Phylip Vychan , heiress of Talgarth, in the same county; but Johns, in
his History of Brecknockshire ... and Sir Samuel Meyrick, in his notes
to Lewis Dwnn's Visitations of Wales .... state the chamberlain of the
prince of Wales to have been the youngest illegitimate son of Sir
Roger Vaughan of Tretower, by an illegitimate daughter of a prior of
the monastery of Abergavenny... This latter account is probably to be
preferred; and if that is the case we may consider the courtier to be
the same Thomas Vaughan, an esquire for the king's body, who having
married Alianor, the widow of Thomas Browne ...."

Regards
Tom Dunn, Kilbrittain, Co. Cork, Ireland

The following PRO record would seem to prove that Thomas Vaughan late of
Tretower was the son of Robert and Margaret Vaghan:

PRO Web Page: C 1/159/64
Richard Raulyns, son and heir of Alice, late the wife of Thomas Vaughan,
knight. v. Roger Boughchier: Refusal to carry out an award by Oliver King,
secretary to the King.
KB 9/957
Returned oyer and terminer commission, Heref, before John earl of Lincoln,
William Huse, Robert Willoughby and associates at Hereford on 16 May 1486,
under commission of 11 May 1486 for all treasons, etc in Herefordshire (CPR
1485-94, 106): file, treason trials of Thomas Vaughan late of Tretower in the
Marchch of Wales and others
1 Hen VII
E 210/2694
Defeasance by John, Abbot of Westminster, and the Chapter of Llandaff of a
bond given them by Monmouth Priory ( Reynold, prior ) on condition that they
observe their ordinance for the maintenance of a chaplain to celebrate for the
good estate of Thomas Vaghan, knight, Chamberlain to the King and the Prince
of Wales, and for his soul after his death, and for the souls of Robert and
Margaret Vaghan his parents, and for the Prince of Wales : Monm.
1477.